By taking a stand on a particular ethical or environmental issue, there
is a natural fear that the organisation is 'raising its head above the
parapet' and inviting the media or pressure groups to take
pot-shots.

This is true of course - and, arguably, fair enough. A journalist will
get far more excited about General Motors lobbying against greenhouse
gas controls if it also happens to be running an ad campaign promoting a
'green' car.

So should firms simply steer clear of taking leadership on such issues?
No - but they do need to show consistency of behaviour across all their
activities, from environmental or diversity policies right through to
high-level public affairs and lobbying.

This is well highlighted in a new report called 'Influencing Power'
(News, p1).

SustainAbility and the pressure group WWF identify 'inconsistent'
approaches to corporate lobbying - saying different things to different
people via different parties - and argues this is ultimately untenable
if these companies seek genuine trust from stakeholder groups.

For example, GlaxoSmithKline may use its CR report to communicate
excellent work on access policies to essential drugs in developing
countries, but it is also a member of lobbying body PhRMA, whose
position on intellectual property rights is strongly criticised by
HIV/Aids policy experts.

What we learn is that the CR debate has moved on, and continues to
accelerate.

Where once CR was seen as one of many PR tools, it is increasingly being
recognised as a way of managing overall reputation among a broad array
of stakeholders.

And looking forward, those companies that can align all their activities
to certain ethical standards - even the cloak and dagger area of
lobbying - will gain a significant strategic edge over their
competitors.